Appeal No. 1997-3241
Application 08/442,726
into the claims. In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1,
5 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In analyzing the scope of the claim,
office personnel must rely on the Appellants' disclosure to
properly determine the meaning of terms used in the claims.
Markman v. Westview Instruments, 52 F.3d 967, 980, 34 USPQ2d
1321, 1330 (Fed. Cir.)(in banc), aff'd, U.S., 116 S. Ct. 1384
(1996). An applicant is entitled to be his or her own
lexicographer, and in many instances will provide an explicit
definition for certain terms used in the claims. Where an
explicit definition is provided by the applicant for a term,
that definition will control interpretation of the term as it
is used in the claim. Office personnel should determine if the
original disclosure provides a definition consistent with any
assertions made by applicant. See, e.g., In re Paulsen, 30
F.3d 1475, 1480, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir.
1994)(inventor may define specific terms used to describe
invention, but must do so "with reasonable clarity,
deliberateness, and precision" and, if done, must "'set out
his uncommon definition in some manner within the patent
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007